Of surrogates and communications, Assange and Stone’s claims and counterclaims

In our previous edition – Tracing the provenance of Pizzagate… – we had speculated that information concerning the odd expressions of culinary terminology in some of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails releases had been conveyed from Julian Assange at the Ecuadoran embassy in London via an intermediary to Roger Stone, who then proceeded to fabricate a pedophilia pizza code with which to besmirch the Clinton campaign. Recent statements of Julian Assange and Roger Stone, however, in mutually distancing from each another, would on the surface appear to dispute the speculation. In his interview broadcast January 3 on FOX News‘ Hannity – Julian Assange: Our source is not the Russian government – Assange confirms that an intermediary between he and Stone did travel to London, though they did not meet personally

HANNITY: Can I ask you this? Have you ever talked to Vladimir Putin?

ASSANGE: No.

HANNITY: Have you ever talked to any of his surrogates?

ASSANGE: No.

HANNITY: Have you ever talked to Donald Trump?

ASSANGE: No.

HANNITY: Any of his surrogates?

ASSANGE: No.

HANNITY: Not one?

ASSANGE: No.

HANNITY: There was a report that you might have talked to somebody who was not associated with the campaign, Roger Stone.

ASSANGE: No, that’s false. I think where this Roger Stone claim is coming from is there’s a — a radio guy on WBAI, which is a mutual friend, who was — who wanted to come and see me to see if I would set up a radio show on WBAI, but he didn’t. He did come to London, but he didn’t meet with me.

The radio host is not named but is probably Randy Credico, of WBAI: Can a Radical Firebrand and His Strange Bedfellows Strengthen WBAI’s Signal?

Stone, in hosting the fourth hour of the Jan. 4 Alex Jones Show, denies specific knowledge of the what, when, and who of the Podesta emails before their release.

Stone: I have never claimed to have met with Julian Assange… I did correctly say that we had a mutual acquaintance and that I had learned that Assange had unspecified political dynamite that he would release. That is not to say that I knew what Assange would deliver, when he would deliver it, where he got it, where it came from, I never made any such claims. Just for the historical record, my claim that Assange had unspecified political dynamite that would roil the race turned out to be exactly correct!

How does this stack up to what was previously reported? In the Roll Call of August 9, Stone is quoted: “I actually have communicated with Assange”. In the Guardian of November 2, Stone is interviewed and is reported to have said he “was briefed in general terms in advance about the sensitive and embarrassing leaked Democratic emails by an American libertarian who works in the media on the ‘opinion side'”. This is consistent with the above; however, the Guardian goes on to report: “Stone claims his American source, whom he declined to identify, has met with Assange,..” This is specifically denied by Assange in the Hannity interview. Stone perhaps was making a plausible assumption, based on the fact that the mutual acquaintance had in fact traveled to London. Why go all that distance and not actually meet with Assange?

If our assumption that Randy Credico is the mutual acquaintance is correct, the expense of the trip of a host working for a cash-strapped radio station would be exorbitant if the arrangements for an interview could be conducted over phone or email and the interview itself done via Skype. The obvious reason for making the trip to London would be to insure secure communication from NSA intercept – no amount of encryption can secure a communication like an in person meeting if all electronic devices are banished from the proximity of the parties communicating.

As for Assange’s statement that he did not meet with the intermediary; this does not rule out another intermediary conveying certain information to the visitor in London, perhaps without Assange’s knowledge, in which case he can confidently maintain that he had no knowing contact with a surrogate (official or unofficial, once, twice or nth times removed) from the Trump campaign.

The question remains, however, how was it that the spurious pizza code was connected to the Podesta email release #28 so soon after their publication? None of what Stone or Assange has said rules out what we have speculated, that the code was a deliberate insinuation of pedophilia upon Podesta and friends supplanted upon the language in the emails that was indeed code-like, but unspecific to readers not privy to its meaning.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s